The hopes of one large family has been plunged into a nightmare. Their mother’s recent purchase of an extra large mixing bowl has crushed their hopes of ever escaping the dreaded bowl haircut that all five siblings receive monthly. All of them had been harboring dreams of one day stepping into an extra bright Great Clips for their first non-bowlcut, were left shell-shocked as their mom’s decision threatened to keep them follicly imprisoned for years to come.
The tale begins with the eldest of the siblings, Chad, a quickly growing 13 year old who had recently outgrown the standard-sized mixing bowl their mother had employed for their regular haircuts. Chad had celebrated this milestone for he had hoped that reaching adolescence would signal the end of the bowl cut era and the dawn of more sophisticated hairstyles.
Read the rest of the satire news article here on TattletaleTimes.com
As a last ditch effort the children pooled their collective allowance, lawn mowing, and babysitting money to retain counsel from Morton, Goldberg, and Charles, a legal firm operating normally in the area of international contract law. A curious choice for representation, except when the legal drama unfolded. When reached for comment Chad replied “My brothers and sisters have a firm policy on not commenting on pending litigation, so with the advice of counsel I must decline to comment. Please contact our legal team for any further inquires”. We attempted to contact them following the opening arguments in the Greene county municipal courthouse. The team of five lawyers including a key litigator (responsible for the legendary win in Chevron v. Government of Pakistan 2021 ) laid out the legal strategy in front of the judge.
Speaking to the 12 seated jurors, Kyle Banks Esquire spoke "Mom, by buying the bigger bowl has broken the social contract that has existed in the household since, the oldest Sarah, was born. For 15 years there has been a precedent upon which ‘a bowl’ was an accepted unit of measure not only for haircuts but for other aspects of life in the Smith household. My clients for 15 years have been restricted to a single bowl of Lucky Charms at breakfast. When press for seconds, mom was quick to fall back on the established and accepted unit of ‘a single bowl’ is the only allowed serving of the now replaced small bowl. Now, she herself has engaged in fraud by buying a larger bowl without recognizing any harm my clients, the children, have suffered from years of being only allowed a smaller portion of Lucky Charms for years. Where, I ask you, is the reciprocity? Has mom tried to make my clients whole by giving them the newly allowed ‘bowl’ size of cereal? Quite the opposite, we will introduce evidence where mom has simply stated ‘nice try bucko, but no dice’. When appeals were made to dad the only response was ‘ask your mother, I’m busy. I’ve got $50 on this game and if the Pats don’t cover the spread we don’t get Christmas this year, ya hear?’. I contend that justice is missing the Smith household, and I will call upon this court to recognize justice here and today.
These compelling arguments suggest strongly mom will cave with a favorable out-of-court settlement in favor of the kids, but we’ll just have to wait and see what the defense presents in the days ahead. Were neither side able to agree to settle, we expect either decision to go to appellate courts which will not favor mom. The 10th district is known for strong protections of plaintiffs subjected to bowl cuts.
